The Types of the French RenaissanceVervliet, Hendrik D. L. The Palaeotypography of the French Renaissance: Selected Papers on Sixteenth-Century Typefaces. 2 vols. The Library of the Written Word 6. The Handpress World 4. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008. 1:viii, 1–286 pp.; 2:vi, 287–565 pp. Illus. Hardcover, €211.00, $293.00 (isbn 978-9004-16982-1).Vervliet, Hendrik D. L. French Renaissance Printing Types: A Conspectus. London: Bibliographical Society and Printing Historical Society; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press, 2010. 472 pp. Illus. Hardcover, $120.00 (isbn 978-1-58456-271-9).

2012 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-256
Author(s):  
William Kemp ◽  
Henri-Paul Bronsard
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 580-601
Author(s):  
Libero Mario Mari ◽  
Francesca Picciaia ◽  
Alan Sangster

This article responds to a scarcity of literature on pre-nineteenth-century accounting education and addresses calls for more research into what gave rise to how we teach accounting today. The sixteenth century was when double entry began to extend beyond its Italian roots and the first printed bookkeeping manuals began to appear alongside Pacioli’s of 1494. Yet, it is the least covered period in our literature. We address this lacuna using hermeneutic analysis to critically analyse Dominico Manzoni’s seldom studied manual of 1540 to discover what he hoped to achieve, what he did, and identify what impact his manual had on how accounting education and accounting practice developed thereafter. We find Manzoni’s objective was to replace school and apprenticeship with the printed book; and that his experience as an accountant and teacher of bookkeeping resulted in his adopting a highly innovative pedagogy that led, taught, and engaged students through the written word. Finally, we identify Manzoni’s manual as the foundation of a dominant genre of bookkeeping manuals that adopted an approach to accounting education which led to the widespread adoption of Pacioli’s definition of double entry and the double entry system in accounting practice that has lasted to the present day.


1963 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-110
Author(s):  
W. L. Wiley

Scholars in the field of French literature of the Renaissance have been quite active during the past year, in keeping with a rising trend of interest that has been obvious for more than a decade. The various bibliographies—the Studies in Philology bibliography, the bibliography of the Revue d'Histoire littéraire de la France, Professor Robert Taylor's listing of books in Renaissance News, etc.—all confirm, I believe, a healthy and growing concern for the sixteenth century in France. The SP bibliography, for example, included in 1949 some 202 items that related to the French Renaissance; the SP bibliography for 1962 contained 423 entries of books and articles involving the Renaissance in France, a pleasing statistical detail for seizièmistes on both sides of the Atlantic. As for journals, the Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance— in keeping with its ancestral connection with Abel Lefranc's Revue des études Rabelaisiennes and the later Revue du seizième siècle—continues to be the publication devoted primarily to the French Renaissance.


1893 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 127-292
Author(s):  
I. S. Leadam

In the ‘English Historical Review’ for April (1893) Professor Ashley offers some criticisms upon the ‘Introduction to the Inquisition of 1517,’ contributed by me to the ‘Transactions of the Royal Historical Society’ for 1892. One object of that Introduction, it may be remembered, was to disprove the assertion of Professor Ashley that at the time when the evictions for inclosure began, and until ‘towards the end of the period,’ ‘the mass of copyholders’ had no legal security. In my view, the manorial records, the compilations of laws in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the practice of the courts, even the treatises of the jurists when critically scrutinised, led to the conclusion not merely that copyholders enjoyed protection in legal theory, but that their predecessors in title, the villeins, had done so before them. I drew no distinction in this matter between customary tenants and copyholders, as Professor Ashley appears to suppose, but showed that security extended even to villeins by blood, or ‘nativi,’ on custo-mary lands. Professor Ashley's proposition that ‘customary tenants’ and ‘copyholders’ were equivalent terms was never doubted by me, and is irrelevant to my argument. Indeed, it is assumed by me on the very pages to which he refers. ‘Mr. Leadam,’ he says, ‘draws a sharp distinction between “copyholders” on the one side and “tenants at will” on the other—a distinction which one may doubt whether the men of the sixteenth century would have felt so keenly.’ The distinction, as those who turn to the passage will see, is between ‘copyholders,’ used in Fitzherbert's sense as equivalent to customary tenants, who were ‘tenants at will according to the custom of the manor,’ and ‘tenants at will at Common Law.’


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document